We also have a nice solution to hunger that really fits into the "high protein" fad, and (this part is sweet cuz it plays to the greenies) eliminates the need for lots of new cemetaries as these oldsters die out.

smoke & mirrors
 

What government employees are you speaking of?

In the fed'l gov't, you get a pension that's (something like) high-three-years X years of service/30. Minimum of five years to qualify, and you can't take it until 62 (or 60). Provisions for an increase if you wait until 70; decrease if you take before 65. Basically, it's the same as many private sectors employers who give a defined benefit plan.

The scandal in pensions is not the benefits, but their routine underfunding by employers.

That's a magnificent idea.

So is raising mandatory retirement to 75.

But since the only thing retirees do is play bingo AND vote, whereas the younger generations do neither, I somehow doubt this will fly.

I thought mandatory retirement constituted age discrimination in this country. What is this mandatory retirement?

smoke & mirrors
 

Funding levels in pension plans fall, obviously, when the market sucks. Unfortunately, this is a time when it is legitimately more difficult for companies to find money to put in.

They are prohibited from overfunding plans when times are good (the economy as a whole is riding high, so the pension plan is flush) -- so to some extent they are in a bind.

Right now, everyone is freaking out because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC, federal entity that insures private defined benefit pension plans) is getting stuck with underfunded plans. People are forgetting that not 5 years ago, a hue and cry was being raised to lower PBGC premiums because it was "getting rich" off of the plans. [Note this insurance is mandatory, not optional.]

There really is not much of a scandal in underfunding of private employer defined benefit plans outside of a few financially distressed industries (steel, airlines).

But, you know, "the real scandal is underfunding by emploeyrs of pensions" makes a nice sound bite.

smoke & mirrors
 

Careful, Regan is listening.

I agree - their wealth/savings/whatever is their money, and they should be able to spend it on whatever they wish. But they should not be able to claim financial support from the rest of us because they want to do something else with that money besides than support themselves (whether that something else is buy toys byond their means, blow it on coke & whores, or leave it to their children).

My parents will be able to leave me more money because they will receive (very nice) SS benefits instead of having to spend their own money. That is nice for me, but still pisses me off a lot in principle. Reforming SS along what I consider to be fair lines would harm me personally rather a lot. It says something about the extent of my outrage that I still think it should be so reformed.
I usually think of "wealth" as "revenue producing capital assets." Having a lot of money, whatever the source, is being "rich." (I think this distinction in vocabulary may be more in my own mind than objective, but there it is.) People may have pensions and wealth, pensions that make them rich but not wealthy, pensions that just provide an adequate income, or pensions that don't. But whatever the source, if one has resources sufficient to make SS payments effectively a "lifestyle subsidy," it pisses me off. Basically, I'm of the opinion that if one can support oneself, whether the source is capital wealth, private pension income, earned income, or whatever, the G shouldn't be taking money earned by the rest of us to give it to you to subsidize either a ritzier lifestyle or wealth transfers to your offspring (though I don't think the G should be taking those, either, if you manage to create and/or preserve them). Not sure if that clears anything up, but there it is.

I believe I am relatively alone in drawing very clear distinctions between social class and economic class. Many "l-m-c" folks, pensions notwithstanding, earn a lot of money, not infrequently a lot more than "professionals" or people who are socially u-m-c. I know a manicurist with no HS diploma who made more than I did last year. In my opinion, one can be l-m-c and very rich indeed (even wealthy), and u-c but poor. I don't care what one's social class is, or the source of one's funds. If you have money, you shouldn't fucking get my money, too.
I am less pissed off about private pensions than I am about the public ones (very much including G employee pensions, but also SS). Lots of private companies fucked up bigtime promising big defined benefits, or running pension Ponzi schemes, just as they fucked up overpaying egomaniacs.* This is sad, but also their own damn fault. The G gives outrageous pensions because the bottomless well of our taxes fund them. That pisses me off because it's my money and there's fuck-all I can do about it (I can punish companies doing stupid things with my money by removing it and investing elsewhere).

I tend to disapprove, in principle, of most forms of government welfare, but if there is to be welfare it should bloody well go to the poor.

* eta: this is not related to ltl's point, which, as she points out, is not exactly the companies' fault. But it also gets into technicalities of private pension finance about which I know nothing at all.

smoke & mirrors
 

Take it to the NYT letters page, sweetie; scandal or not, they've been reporting on problems in defined benefit plans for much of the last year. Maybe it's limited to a few companies, but if the companies are GM, Ford, UAL, AMR, and others, there's more than a small problem.

smoke & mirrors
 

Well it does clear up whether you'd prefer to be living pre-New Deal.

smoke & mirrors
 

Those entities have been financially distressed for fucking ever. They are basically obsolete and being propped up by the US gov't.

The plans are big enough that any significant upturn in the market makes what sounds like huge levels of underfunding disappear disappear overnight. HUGE, HUGE plans with a shitload of assets.

I am shocked that you of all people are taking that biased rag, the NYT, as gospel. Especially on an economic issue.

Strike that - I meant minimum age to receive retirement benefits.

If you wear clothes, Bush has a new tax on you.
 

This is what happens when Southerners control the GOP, and it controls the government: The Bush Administration just announced new protectionist tariffs on clothing imports. "The new rules, scheduled to be published today in the Federal Register, were posted in recent days on a government Web site. Word of their impending imposition has stirred anger among clothing retailers and importers, who contend that the barriers contravene an international agreement to open the worldwide textile trade starting in 2005." Maybe they believed that crap about balancing the budget, too.

smoke & mirrors
 

Sadly, AARP is far too powerful a lobby. Almost as powerful as the Bushies said the trial lawyers were....

And I agree that a big part of the SS question is an attitude of entitlement. Even my parents, who, through a lot of hard work and plenty of luck, are in a position where they don't really need the SS benefits. Nonetheless, my father bristles at the idea of not getting the benefits he "paid for."

Of course, this is the same phenomenon that causes people, implausibly, to resist means testing...

It is not if it is a bonifide job qualification. Pilots, for example, have a mandatory retirement age.

As do partners at some law firms (i.e. mine), but I have a feeling that is a different question of law.

Ad(yes, I know that wasn't really your point)der

too funny
 

Peggy Noonan channels Tupac on the Wellstone Memorial. An oldy but goody. So maybe it's not really Peggy.

too funny
 

Maybe not, but the slip towards the end of "mother fuckers" tells me that it probably is.

Get in line, you tools
 

Think that the things you're hearing from the Bush Administration about SocSec reform are a little dicey? Ill-considered? Unnecessary, perhaps? Perhaps you're even a GOPer?

Hate to tell you this, but David Brooks tells us that you're a Michael Moore-lovin', conspiracy-worshipping, fucking pinko commie.

This train is movin, pal, and unless you want to stand at the station next to a fossilized FDR, you better hop on. You may get a couple of seats in the last car, but no guarantees.

Oopsie!
 

One of Minnesota's electoral votes goes to John Edwards instead of John Kerry!

Now, if only Bush electors had made 270 similar mistakes, there'd be a new Sherriff in town.

here's your global test
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ational_poll_6

Old Europe now hates us, not just our government.

We still have the Canadians

For now at least

The mandatory retirement ages at law firms and accounting firms is not age discrimination because (i) partners aren't employees and (ii) the mandatory retirement is a voluntary contractual arrangement.

Glad I'm Still Single
 

• Piscataway, N.J. — Researchers at Rutgers University have developed a trio of drugs they believe can destroy HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to a published report.
  
  The drugs, called DAPYs, mimic the virus by changing shape, which enables them to interfere with the way HIV attacks the immune system.
  
  Tests conducted in conjunction with Johnson and Johnson have shown the drug to be easily absorbed with minimal side effects. It also can be taken in one pill, in contrast to the drug cocktails currently taken by many AIDS patients.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...enceandHealth/

For Hank
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12....ap/index.html

Shouldn't they have a warning sticker saying intelligent design is only a theory?

This Surprised Me
 

• NEW YORK Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.
  
  In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.
  
  Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.
  
  Gallup noted today: “Post-election shifts in partisanship after presidential elections or midterm congressional elections are not routine, but are also not uncommon.”
  
  Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000736911

Already researching your options, eh?

Ad(that is what I thought)der

the gift that keeps giving
 

So the downtown apartment that Kerik was using for his two affairs was donated as a resting spot for police officers at ground zero.

the gift that keeps giving
 

eta: But wait, there's more! Bigamy!

Sweet Home Alabama
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141541,00.html

they didn't get all of the sets of 10 Commandments out of Alabama Courthouses....

You think this guy might be angling for a appointment to a US D. Ct seat? Best part.....

Petty
 

So you know how those conservative "family" groups have been flooding the FCC with indecency complaints?

Now it's your turn! From Atrios (which I don't usually read, but I saw a link to it this morning on Wonkette):

• FCC Action Alert!!!
  
  1. Go to http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rush.guest.html and find your Limbaugh station.
  2. Send an email to fccinfo@fcc.gov with your own version of the following:
  
  On Monday, December 13 in the 2nd hour of his program (1pm EST) broadcast on [CALL SIGN HERE], Rush Limbaugh used the vulgar, sexual term "dick" when referring to a Miss Plastic Surgery pageant. Specifically, Limbaugh said:
  
  
  "LIMBAUGH: Miss Plastic Surgery. (chuckle) And – I’d – I’d – I – I don’t – I don’t know what the winner – I – and, oh, I didn’t print out both pages, so I don’t know what the – I don’t know what the winner gets. Probably a certificate to go to San Francisco to have an add-a-dick-to-me operation. "

Come on, you know you want to do it, RT.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_12_1...05730452212714

smoke & mirrors
 

Well, the money in SS is not welfare - it was earned by its receipients, so they should have the right to spend it as they like. Again, SS is not a govt fund for people - its govt giving people back their own money.

I don't agree that SS should be reformed to a "need based" program which you appear to advocate. That is an insidious form of wealth redistribution which would only serve to reward the irresponsible. If we follow Bush's privatization scheme, there will be armies of idiots losing their asses in the market and looking for pockets to pick later. The responsible should not be a crutch for idiots. This reason, among many others, makes me wonder why Bush would push for privatization. My cynical guess is he views privatization as the first step in a long GOP effort to undo SS entirely. Thats reckless, IMO. We need the program. Most of us are too goddamn stupid to be responsible for our retirement. I offer as evidence the mass of voters through the country who voted against their own economic interest this Fall. My second exhibit would be raw data on the lack of brains in this country. If you don't know simple geopgraphy or still believe Hussein was involved in 9/11, you probably don't have much investing acumen.

You're not losing money on this deal. If your folks don't need SS, the cash will trickle to you later. Any loss of the money from their spending on vacations and crap they don't need will be made up by the investment gains of their savings they're not using. You're just being impatient.

Petty
 

Should I wear my burka?

smoke & mirrors
 

Uh, sebby, they don't, and never have, kept the money in a special place for you. they take the money deducted from your paycheck and use it to pay current benefits. Hence the problem.

Good to know you paid attention (sorta, well, for *you* you did a good job) in history in grade school and learned how they sold SS to the public.

Think of it as a regressive income tax and you will be better off.

Petty
 

The FCC is completely out of control. Apparently they are now investigating NBC's broadcast of the summer olympics opening ceremony, because one of the country's presentations was allegedly indecent (something about overtly sexual dancing).

Then there was the Saving Private Ryan debacle. The FCC has now concluded they are not going to pursue action, even though the movie was run uncut and included profanity.

Thank god (for now) for cable and satellite.

smoke & mirrors
 

I wasn't saying the money was kept in a special place, just that the character of the money is technically "one's own". Of course SS cash is used elsewhere, but if you're lucky enough to receive SS payments someday, those benefits will constitute a repayment of what you paid into the system.

Union Jack-ass
 

Saddam stooge and US-hating British MP George Galloway makes an even bigger ass of himself - if at all possible:

Petty
 

Just you wait. The crazies will be after pay tv soon enough. they claim they only want to ensure that they are not exposed to filthy things, but you know damn well they want to cleanse everything they can. They'll be angling to censor pay and satellite tv soon enough.

Union Jack-ass
 

While I'm not going to defend Galloway's comments, you should know that the story that he was a "Saddam stooge" is now understood to have been based on fraudulent documents and that Galloway recently won a huge libel verdict against the paper that ran it.

The Army we have
 

You're in the Army Reserve, and have been commanded to drive supplies into central Iraq. You don't have enough trucks to move the materiel, and you are also missing crucial spare parts for your vehicles. Under Bush Administration policies, what do you do?

* Dig through landfills to find the parts and presumably entire trucks? Rummy says yes, but what other options are there?

* Refuse to go because of the lack of equipment? Hell, no. For disobeying direct orders, you'll get yourself imprisioned and court-martialed for that kind of attitude.

* Be creative and commandeer Army trucks that were abandonded by other units and use them to carry out your mission?

Sorry, solider. Try something creative like that and you'll be convicted of theft and destruction of military property, and spend six months in military prison.

• The two officers, Maj. Cathy Kaus and Chief Warrant Officer Darrell Birt, are among six Army reservists who were found guilty in court-martial proceedings earlier this year. Both were sentenced to six-month prison terms and given dishonorable discharges. The others were given lesser sentences.
  
  ***
  
  The main facts in the case are undisputed. Soldiers from the 656th Transportation Company arrived in Kuwait in March 2003, were quickly ordered to Iraq and found themselves without enough trucks to carry their equipment. They took two Army trucks and two trailers they believed to have been abandoned by units that had already moved into Iraq, loaded them with equipment and drove them to their base near the Iraqi town of Tikrit.
  
  Several weeks later, they found what appeared to be an abandoned Army truck along an Iraqi highway, towed it to their base and stripped it for spare parts.
  
  Mr. Birt said in a telephone interview that without those parts, his unit, which had 60 fuel-hauling trucks, would have been unable to complete its mission of delivering fuel to American bases throughout central Iraq.
  
  "The choice was either to find parts where we could, or do the mission halfway and expose our people to danger, or refuse to go," he said. "We felt we needed this stuff for mission sustainment."
  
  Another soldier in the unit, Specialist Robert Chalmers, said that its repeated efforts to obtain spare parts, both before it was deployed to Iraq and afterward, were unsuccessful.
  
  "We ordered parts, but they never came," Specialist Chalmers said.

I hope to hell there's more to this.

smoke & mirrors
 

That's how it's often sold, but not really what it is. Were it so, then it would be difficult to explain how the payout of current retirees' benefits have vastly exceeded what those retirees have put in.

Kinsley's SocSec conundrum
 

From Sullivan:

• My old boss and friend, Mike Kinsley, now running the editorial pages at the Los Angeles Times, poses the following conundrum, which he invites any of you to refute. Yep, he's a big media guy turning to blogs for an answer. Write responses to him at michael.kinsley@latimes.com. Here's his argument:
  
  My contention: Social Security privatization is not just unlikely to succeed, for various reasons that are subject to discussion. It is mathematically certain to fail. Discussion is pointless.
  
  The usual case against privatization is that (1) millions of inexperienced investors may end up worse off, and (2) stocks don't necessarily do better than bonds over the long-run, as proponents assume.But privatization won't work for a better reason: it can't possibly work, even in theory. The logic is not very complicated.
  
  1. To "work," privatization must generate more money for retirees than current arrangements. This bonus is supposed to be extra money in retirees' pockets and/or it is supposed to make up for a reduction in promised benefits, thus helping to close the looming revenue gap.
  
  2. Where does this bonus come from? There are only two possibilities: from greater economic growth, or from other people.
  
  3. Greater economic growth requires either more capital to invest, or smarter investment of the same amount of capital. Privatization will not lead to either of these.
  
  a) If nothing else in the federal budget changes, every dollar deflected from the federal treasury into private social security accounts must be replaced by a dollar that the government raises in private markets. So the total pool of capital available for private investment remains the same.
  
  b) The only change in decision-making about capital investment is that the decisions about some fraction of the capital stock will be made by people with little or no financial experience. Maybe this will not be the disaster that some critics predict. But there is no reason to think that it will actually increase the overall return on capital.
  
  4. If the economy doesn't produce more than it otherwise would, the Social Security privatization bonus must come from other investors, in the form of a lower return.
  
  a) This is in fact the implicit assumption behind the notion of putting Social Security money into stocks, instead of government bonds, because stocks have a better long-term return. The bonus will come from those saps who sell the stocks and buy the bonds.
  
  b) In other words, privatization means betting the nation's most important social program on a theory that cannot be true unless many people are convinced that it's false.
  
  c) Even if the theory is true, initially, privatization will make it false. The money newly available for private investment will bid up the price of (and thus lower the return on) stocks, while the government will need to raise the interest on bonds in order to attract replacement money.
  
  d) In short, there is no way other investors can be tricked or induced into financing a higher return on Social Security.
  
  5. If the privatization bonus cannot come from the existing economy, and cannot come from growth, it cannot exist. And therefore, privatization cannot work.
  
  Q.E.D.
  Or not?

Makes sense to me. Can anyone help me refute this?

The Army we have
 

Hell yes lets hope so. Hawkeye stole a jeep in MASH because he needed to get to the unit, stealing trucks is fine. The military should rely on all the guys stealing stuff in the right way, they're there, on the ground- the soldiers will re-distribute trucks efficieintly. Military command decisions aren't necessary.

The Army we have
 

Nor, according to SecDef, is equipment.